Arvind Madhaorao Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra, Represented By Collector, Yavatmal And 2 Others

2024:BHC-NAG:1057 1 FA145.24 (J).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

FIRST APPEAL NO.

OF 20 APPELLANT : Arvind Mahadeorao Patil, Aged about 64 years, Occu. Agriculturist, R/o Jagnath Budhwari, Nagpur, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS : 1] The State of Maharashtra, represented by Collector, Yavatmal.

2] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bembla Project, Yavatmal.

3] The Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Vidarbha Irrigation Department Corporation, Avdhutwadi, Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. Swati K. Paunikar,, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Ganesh Umale, A.G.P. for responent nos.1 and 2. Mr. M. A. Kadu, Advocate for respondent no.3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM :

G. A. SANAP, J.

DATED :

JANUARY , 2024.

ORAL JUDGMENT 1.

The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.07.2006, passed by learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Yavatmal (for short 'Reference Court'), whereby the reference for

2 FA145.24 (J).odt enhancement of compensation was partly allowed. According to the appellant, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court was not consistent with the record and the evidence.

2.

The land of the appellantbearing survey No.63, admeasuring 11.17 HR, was acquired for Bembla River Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the L.A. Act") was issued on 17.12.1998. The Award was passed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer on 16.06.2001. Learned SLAO awarded the compensation @ Rs.58,184/- per hectare for dry crop land and @ Rs.87,267/- per hectare for irrigated land. The Reference Court awarded compensation in respect of dry crop land @ Rs.75,000/- per hectare and 11⁄4th time of the said rate for irrigated land. According to the appellant, the market price of the land determined by the Reference Court is not just, proper and reasonable.

3.

I have heard Mrs. Swati Paunikar, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Ganesh Umale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. M.A. Kadu, learned advocate for respondent no.3. Perused the record and proceedings.

3 FA145.24 (J).odt 4.

Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that this appeal would be covered by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7860-61 of 2023 (Arvind Madhaorao Patil and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others), decided on 28.11.2023, in respect of another land of the appellant bearing survey No. 42. Learned advocate submitted that the land bearing survey no.63, which is the subject matter of this appeal and the land bearing survey No. 42, which is the subject matter of the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were owned by the appellant. Both lands were similarly situated. Learned advocate pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded compensation @ Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare in respect of dry crop land.

As far as irrigated land is concerned, learned advocate relied upon the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 829 of 2013 (Bhaskar Mehetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others), decided on 24.01.2018 and submitted that in the case of the irrigated part of land bearing survey No. 61, the compensation was awarded @ Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare. Learned advocate pointed out that in this case, the Reference Court recorded a finding that the land admeasuring 7.13 HR was dry crop land and the land admeasuring 4.04 HR was irrigated land.

4 FA145.24 (J).odt advocate submitted that the appellant is entitled to get compensation @ Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare in respect of dry crop land and @ Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for irrigated land. 5.

On going through the record and proceedings, it is seen that the lands bearing survey Nos. 63, 42 and 61 were acquired for the Bembla River Project. The lands were similarly situated. The lands were acquired under the same award. In my view, therefore, this appeal would be covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court. As stated above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation @ Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare in respect of dry crop land admeasuring 7.13 HR and @ Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for irrigated land admeasuring 4.04 HR. The appellant is entitled to get interest and other benefits as determined by the Reference Court.

6.

In the result, the First Appeal is allowed.

i] The Judgment and order dated 31.07.2006, passed by learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Yavatmal, in Land Acquisition Case No. 217/2005 is modified.

5 FA145.24 (J).odt ii] The appellant is entitled to get compensation @ Rs.1,20,000/- per hectare in respect of dry crop land admeasuring 7.13 HR and @ Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for irrigated land admeasuring 4.04 HR. The appellant is entitled to get interest and other benefits as determined by the Reference Court.

iii] There was delay in filing this appeal. The appellant shall not be entitled for any interest on the amount of compensation and other statutory benefits for the delayed period. iv] The amount be deposited within three months from the date of this judgment.

v] Decree be drawn up accordingly.

vi] The appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ( G. A. SANAP, J. ) Diwale Signed by: DIWALE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 25/01/2024 18:57:35